Patient stratification for preventive care in dentistry.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Giannobile WV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3711568 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient stratification for preventive care in dentistry.
Giannobile W V WV Braun T M TM Caplis A K AK Doucette-Stamm L L Duff G W GW Kornman K S KS
Journal of dental research 20130610 8
Prevention reduces tooth loss, but little evidence supports biannual preventive care for all adults. We used risk-based approaches to test tooth loss association with 1 vs. 2 annual preventive visits in high-risk (HiR) and low-risk (LoR) patients. Insurance claims for 16 years for 5,117 adults were evaluated retrospectively for tooth extraction events. Patients were classified as HiR for progressive periodontitis if they had ≥ 1 of the risk factors (RFs) smoking, diabetes, interleukin-1 genotype ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background. Few Americans obtain all 41 guideline-recommended preventive services for nonpregnant adults. We assessed patient interest in prioritizing their preventive care needs. Methods. We conducted a mixed-methods study, with 4 focus groups (N = 28) at a single institution and a nationwide survey (N = 2,103). Participants were middle-aged and older adults with preventive care needs. We obtained reactions to written materials describing the magnitude of benefit from major preventive services, including both absolute and relative benefits. Recommendations were individualized for patient risk factors ("individualized preventive care recommendations"). Focus groups assessed patient interest, how patients would want to discuss individualized recommendations with their providers, and potential for individualized recommendations to influence patient decision making. Survey content was based on focus groups and analyzed with logistic regression. Results. Patients expressed strong interest in individualized recommendations. Among survey respondents, an adjusted 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.7% to 89.7%) found individualized recommendations very easy to understand, 77.2% (95% CI = 75.3% to 79.1%) considered them very useful, and 64.9% (95% CI = 62.8% to 67.0%) highly trustworthy (each ≥6/7 on Likert scale). Three quarters of participants wanted to receive their own individualized recommendations in upcoming primary care visits (adjusted proportion = 77.5%, 95% CI = 75.6% to 79.4%). Both focus group and survey participants supported shared decision making and reported that individualized recommendations would improve motivation to obtain preventive care. Half of survey respondents reported that they would be much more likely to visit their doctor if they knew individualized recommendations would be discussed, compared with 4.2% who would not be more likely to visit their doctor. Survey respondents already prioritized preventive services, stating they were most likely to choose quick/easy preventive services and least likely to choose expensive preventive services (adjusted proportions, 63.8% and 8.5%, respectively). Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. Individualized preventive care recommendations are likely to be well received in primary care and might motivate patients to improve adherence to evidence-based care.
| S-EPMC6540511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence-based preventive services offer profound health benefits, yet Americans receive only half of indicated care. A variety of government and specialty society policy initiatives are promoting the adoption of information technologies to engage patients in their care, such as personal health records, but current systems may not utilize the technology's full potential.Using a previously described model to make information technology more patient-centered, we developed an interactive preventive health record (IPHR) designed to more deeply engage patients in preventive care and health promotion. We recruited 14 primary care practices to promote the IPHR to all adult patients and sought practice and patient input in designing the IPHR to ensure its usability, salience, and generalizability. The input involved patient usability tests, practice workflow observations, learning collaboratives, and patient feedback. Use of the IPHR was measured using practice appointment and IPHR databases.The IPHR that emerged from this process generates tailored patient recommendations based on guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and other organizations. It extracts clinical data from the practices' electronic medical record and obtains health risk assessment information from patients. Clinical content is translated and explained in lay language. Recommendations review the benefits and uncertainties of services and possible actions for patients and clinicians. Embedded in recommendations are self management tools, risk calculators, decision aids, and community resources--selected to match patient's clinical circumstances. Within six months, practices had encouraged 14.4% of patients to use the IPHR (ranging from 1.5% to 28.3% across the 14 practices). Practices successfully incorporated the IPHR into workflow, using it to prepare patients for visits, augment health behavior counseling, explain test results, automatically issue patient reminders for overdue services, prompt clinicians about needed services, and formulate personalized prevention plans.The IPHR demonstrates that a patient-centered personal health record that interfaces with the electronic medical record can give patients a high level of individualized guidance and be successfully adopted by busy primary care practices. Further study and refinement are necessary to make information systems even more patient-centered and to demonstrate their impact on care.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00589173.
| S-EPMC3250934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Dental practitioners are exposed to different occupational hazards during the course of their professional activity, such as physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic factors. The ergonomic hazards, caused by strained posture and prolonged repetitive movements, can induce musculoskeletal disorders. It occurs in 54-93% of dental professionals and involve the spine, shoulder and hand-wrist tract. Through a systematic review of international literature, we analyzed specific ergonomic risk factors and preventive measures of musculoskeletal disorders in professional dental activity. Methods:This systematic review is coherent with the PRISMA statement. The scientific research on the major online databases was based on the following keywords: dentist, prevention, ergonomic, dentistry, musculoskeletal, neck pain, posture, ergonomics, work and occupational. The studies included in this review focus on disorders related to ergonomics and on the most effective preventive measures to be adopted. No restrictions were applied for language or publication type. We excluded reports not related to ergonomic prevention in dentistry, reports of minor academic significance, editorial articles, individual contributions, and studies published in scientific conferences. Results:Online research indicated 4188 references: PubMed (2919), Scopus (1257) e Cochrane Library (12). We excluded 3012 of these, because they were unrelated to ergonomics theme and 187 due to duplication. From the remaining 989 studies, 960 papers did not meet inclusion criteria and they were excluded. Therefore, we analyzed 29 articles, including 16 narrative reviews and 13 original article. The main risk factor for the development of musculoskeletal disorders found in our analysis is static posture adopted during work, highlighted in 87.5% of reviews and 84% of original articles. With regard to preventive measures, 75% of the reviews highlighted the importance of stretching after each working session and at the end of the working day, while 61.5% of the original articles emphasized the use of modern and ergonomic instruments. Discussion:This review showed that static postures are strongly responsible in the etiology of musculoskeletal disorders. The awkward postures more frequently identified among dental professionals are: extreme forward-head and neck flexion; trunk inclination and rotation towards one side; lifting one or both shoulders; increased curvature of the thoracic vertebral column; incorrect positioning of the lower limbs with thigh-leg angle of less than 90°. It is really important to use of a modern workstation with appropriate ergonomic supports. Among the preventive ergonomic measures, literature has widely recognized the role of physical activity and of a neutral and balanced posture. The present review has some limits: a large part of the selected studies did not have a high methodological quality score and an inadequate statistical analysis.
| S-EPMC5772380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The number of preventive care guidelines is rapidly increasing. It is unknown whether the number of guideline-recommended preventive services is associated with utilization. METHODS:The authors used Poisson regression of 390,778 person-years of electronic medical records data from 2008 to 2015, in 80,773 individuals aged 50-75 years. Analyses considered eligibility for 11 preventive services most closely associated with guidelines: tobacco cessation; control of obesity, hypertension, lipids, or blood glucose; influenza vaccination; and screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancers, abdominal aortic aneurysm, or osteoporosis. The outcome was the rate of preventive care utilization over the following year. Results were adjusted for demographics and stratified by the number of disease risk factors (smoking, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes). Data were collected in 2016 and analyzed in 2017. RESULTS:Preventive care utilization was lower when the number of guideline-recommended preventive services was higher. The adjusted rate of preventive care utilization decreased from 38.67 per 100 (95% CI=38.16, 39.18) in patients eligible for one guideline-recommended service to 31.59 per 100 (95% CI=31.29, 31.89) in patients eligible for two services and 25.43 per 100 (95% CI=24.68, 26.18) in patients eligible for six or more services (p-trend<0.001). Results were robust to disease risk factors and observed for all but two services (tobacco cessation, obesity reduction). However, for any given number of guideline-recommended services, patients with more disease risk factors had higher utilization rates. CONCLUSIONS:The rate of preventive care utilization was lower when the number of guideline-recommended services was higher. Prioritizing recommendations might improve utilization of high-value services.
| S-EPMC6014877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThis randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services.ObjectiveTo pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized risk factors at 3 US primary care clinics between 2017 and 2020. Eligible patients were between ages 45 to 70 years with 2 or more high-risk factors. Patients were followed-up after 1 year.InterventionsThe gain in life expectancy associated with guideline adherence to each recommended preventive service was estimated. Personalized estimates incorporating risk factors in electronic health records were displayed in a physician-distributed visual aid. During development, physicians discussed individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM). During the trial, patients were randomized to receive individualized recommendations or usual care (nonmasked, parallel, 1:1 ratio).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was patient interest in individualized recommendations, assessed by survey. Secondary outcomes were use of SDM, decisional comfort, readiness to change, and preventive services received within 1 year.ResultsThe study enrolled 104 patients (31 development, 39 intervention, 34 control), of whom 101 were included in analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [5.3] years; 73 [72.3%] women; 80 [79.2%] Black patients) and 20 physicians. Intervention patients found the tool helpful and wanted to use it again, rating it a median 9 of 10 (IQR, 8-10) and 10 of 10 (8-10), respectively. Compared with the control group, intervention patients more often correctly identified the service least likely (18 [46%] vs 0; P = .03) to improve their life expectancy. A greater number of patients also identified the service most likely to improve their life expectancy (26 [69%] vs 10 [30%]; P = .07), although this result was not statistically significant. Intervention patients reported greater mean [SD] improvement in SDM (4.7 [6.9] points) and near-term readiness to change (13.8 points for top-3-ranked recommendations). Point estimates indicated that patients in the intervention group experienced greater, although non-statistically significant, reductions in percentage of body weight (-2.96%; 95% CI, -8.18% to 2.28%), systolic blood pressure (-6.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16.12 to 3.27 mm Hg), hemoglobin A1c (-0.68%; 95% CI, -1.82% to 0.45%), 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score (-1.20%; 95% CI, -3.65% to 1.26%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -26.63 to 9.70 mg/dL) than the control group. Nineteen of 20 physicians wanted to continue using the decision tool in the future.Conclusions and relevanceIn this clinical trial, an individualized preventive care decision support tool improved patient understanding of primary prevention and demonstrated promise for improved shared decision-making and preventive care utilization.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023813.
| S-EPMC8564576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE:This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN:The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS:Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS:The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES:Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS:Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS:A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION:National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.
| S-EPMC6082187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prevention has been identified as an effective strategy to lead healthy, active and independent lives in old age. Developing effective prevention programs requires understanding the influence of both individual and health system level factors on utilisation of specific services. This study examines the variations in utilisation of preventive services by the population aged 50 and over in 14 European countries, pooling data from the two waves of Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe and the British Household Panel Survey. The models used allow for the impact of individual level demand-side characteristics and supply-side health systems features to be separately identified. The analysis shows significant variations in preventive care utilisation both within and across European countries. In all countries, controlling for individual health status and country-level systemic differences, higher educated and higher income groups use more preventive services. At the health system level, high public health expenditures and high GP density is associated with a high level of preventive care use, but specialist density does not appear to have any effect. Moreover, payment schemes for GPs and specialists appear to significantly affect the incentives to provide preventive health care. In systems where doctors are paid by fee-for-service the utilisation of all health services, including cancer screening, are higher.
| S-EPMC5547316 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDental caries is the most common chronic disease of adult and childhood, a largely preventable yet widespread, costly public health problem. This study identified patient-, organization-, and system-level factors influencing routine delivery of recommended care for prevention and management of caries in primary dental care.MethodsA convergent mixed-methods design assessed six guidance-recommended behaviours to prevent and manage caries (recording risk, risk-based recall intervals, applying fluoride varnish, placing preventive fissure sealants, demonstrating oral health maintenance, taking dental x-rays). A diagnostic questionnaire assessing current practice, beliefs, and practice characteristics was sent to a random sample of 651 dentists in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland. Eight in-depth case studies comprising observation of routine dental visits and dental team member interviews were conducted. Patient feedback was collected from adult patients with recent checkups at case study practices. Key informant interviews were conducted with decision makers in policy, funding, education, and regulation. The Theoretical Domains Framework within the Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify and describe patient-, organization-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to care. Findings were merged into a matrix describing theoretical domains salient to each behaviour. The matrix and Behaviour Change Wheel were used to prioritize behaviours for change and plan relevant intervention strategies.ResultsTheoretical domains associated with best practice were identified from the questionnaire (N-196), case studies (N = 8 practices, 29 interviews), and patient feedback (N = 19). Using the study matrix, key stakeholders identified priority behaviours (use of preventive fissure sealants among 6-12-year-olds) and strategies (audit and feedback, patient informational campaign) to improve guidance implementation. Proposed strategies were assessed as appropriate for immediate implementation and suitable for development with remaining behaviours.ConclusionsSpecific, theoretically based, testable interventions to improve caries prevention and management were coproduced by patient-, practice-, and policy-level stakeholders. Findings emphasize duality of behavioural determinants as barriers and facilitators, patient influence on preventive care delivery, and benefits of integrating multi-level interests when planning interventions in a dynamic, resource-constrained environment. Interventions identified in this study are actively being used to support ongoing implementation initiatives including guidance, professional development, and oral health promotion.
| S-EPMC4710040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationTechnologies that generate high-throughput omics data are flourishing, creating enormous, publicly available repositories of multi-omics data. As many data repositories continue to grow, there is an urgent need for computational methods that can leverage these data to create comprehensive clusters of patients with a given disease.ResultsOur proposed approach creates a patient-to-patient similarity graph for each data type as an intermediate representation of each omics data type and merges the graphs through subspace analysis on a Grassmann manifold. We hypothesize that this approach generates more informative clusters by preserving the complementary information from each level of omics data. We applied our approach to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) breast cancer dataset and show that by integrating gene expression, microRNA and DNA methylation data, our proposed method can produce clinically useful subtypes of breast cancer. We then investigate the molecular characteristics underlying these subtypes. We discover a highly expressed cluster of genes on chromosome 19p13 that strongly correlates with survival in TCGA breast cancer patients and validate these results in three additional breast cancer datasets. We also compare our approach with previous integrative clustering approaches and obtain comparable or superior results.Availability and implementationhttps://github.com/michaelsharpnack/GrassmannCluster.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC6513164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although there is considerable evidence that current health IT can improve certain elements of care, the most effective and efficient implementation of health IT systems for primary care population management are not currently known. Indeed, while many systems currently take a "case-management" approach to identify and address clinical care issues for high risk patients, no systems to our knowledge apply a risk-based approach that accounts both for adverse clinical outcome risk (e.g. breast cancer in a woman who has not had indicated screening for 4 years) and for clinical process risk (e.g. the likelihood that a specific patient will ignore a reminder letter and would therefore benefit from direct phone or in person contact). The investigators propose to directly test the hypothesis that implementing a health IT platform that 1) provides novel risk-based decision support using data derived from the electronic health record (EHR) and 2) leverages each clinician’s unique knowledge of his or her patient panel will result in more effective and more efficient population-based primary care. The investigators will test this hypothesis in a practice-randomized clinical trial of preventive cancer screening within our primary care Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN).
| 2108107 | ecrin-mdr-crc